Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-19 Thread Andy Townsend
On 14/10/2017 03:56, Clifford Snow wrote: Unnamed streams are helpful to people hiking in the forest areas by giving a landmark for navigation. I'm in the UK so I'm not familiar with NHD, but here I am familiar with streams here traced from NPE (old maps, very inaccurate by modern

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-17 Thread Ben Discoe
I've probably done the most NHD cleanup so far (at least some degree of fixing on the entire state of NC, most of IL, northern MI, parts of OK/TX/UT/CO, and a lot of CA), many hundreds of hours of manual work. Just to chime in with agreement on what everyone has said, yes to: 1. NHD has lots of

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-17 Thread Michael Patrick
> Maybe we can get someone to host NHD data for others to trace in. If anyone is reading this and is willing to host the data, I'm willing to help with the design and conversions. The USGS provides several WMS endpoints for the NHD , most likely these will

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-16 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > >> > Unnamed streams are helpful to people hiking in the forest areas by giving > a landmark for navigation. From areas I'm familiar with, there are > thousands of unnamed streams. They are unnamed because

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-16 Thread Clifford Snow
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > > the problem here is that at least those NHD imports I have seen in > Montana have only some of the existing streams. I don't know if this is > because NHD does not have more or because the import used not all

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-16 Thread Wolfgang Zenker
Hi, * Charlotte Wolter [171016 23:50]: > Clifford makes some very good points. In the West, particularly, > those little intermittent streams are important landmarks. Particularly > when hiking in a featureless area, such as pinyon-juniper forest, a > trail

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-16 Thread OSM Volunteer stevea
Echoing (+1-ing) what Charlotte (and Clifford) said: waterway=creek on a downward-flowing way (and an intermittent=yes tag, if true) are extensively used and helpful, certainly where I am. While hiking, they are relatively unambiguous wayfinding attributes, especially when/as they are

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-16 Thread Charlotte Wolter
Hello, all, Clifford makes some very good points. In the West, particularly, those little intermittent streams are important landmarks. Particularly when hiking in a featureless area, such as pinyon-juniper forest, a trail direction may say something like, "turn right after crossing the

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Clifford Snow
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 13 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > I remain unconvinced that importing or not importing has had any > > significant impact on whether people improve the map manually. > > > There are a number of

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > There are a number of possible measures that could be considered for > improving old NHD imports: > > * removal of unnecessary tags to reduce the baggage mappers would have > to deal with when working on the data. > *

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Friday 13 October 2017, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I remain unconvinced that importing or not importing has had any > significant impact on whether people improve the map manually. In case of NHD imports in the US there are certainly significant parts of the country where no NHD data has been

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I only posted that on the talk list and not here, so for those on > talk-us who don't read talk and who are familiar with the "imports are > always bad for the community" discussion, you might want to have a look > at a

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Clifford Snow
I live in the west coast of the US where manually surveying waterways is not only difficult, but almost impossible. I can't quantify how much as been cleaned up, but I do know of efforts to fix problems. For example, most of the waterways in the Olympic Peninsula were reversed. That's been fix. (I

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think this is probably a good example for imports discouraging manual > mapping. If this data was not there mappers would probably meanwhile > have added at least the larger rivers but with the dense network of NHD >

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 10/13/17 15:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: > (I ignore the arguments that > are based solely on contentions that "imports are always bad for the > community," or else I'd never import anything.) I only posted that on the talk list and not here, so for those on talk-us who don't read talk and who

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Kevin Kenny
On 10/13/2017 02:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Friday 13 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I haven't researched who added them and when, but they would > certainly not clear the quality standards we have for imports today. > Most of this information can be properly modelled in usual OSM tags, > and where it cannot, it probably

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Dave Swarthout
Sometimes I think it might have been better if OSM had never imported Tiger data. It is simply pitiful, almost worse than nothing, in many areas of Alaska. Same with the coastlines and NHD water bodies. I know they represent a first approximation and without any coastlines we couldn't have a map,

Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Wolfgang Zenker
Hi, * Frederik Ramm [171013 08:06]: >there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A > - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the > underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m

[Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports

2017-10-13 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just to grab a few. I haven't researched who added